"Made in California" Box Set

[sockittome]

COME ON, PHIL, SHOW US YOUR DICK SO WE CAN ALL COMPARE

I thought we hadn't determined Phil's gender. 

[Jeff]

The attitude seems to be that there should be no moderation of these threads whatsoever - just let everyone say whatever they want

Yeah.  And I hope it never changes.  

I'm on several messageboards and I quite enjoy how this one isn't as "regime" like as it could be.  You don't know how good we have it.  It's only until the freedom is taken away from you when you realize how great it was.  I'm on boards that are heavily moderated and it's no fun.  Threads missing with no explanation, comments removed for no good reason.  It makes for a very confusing not to mention untrusting environment to share thoughts.  You don't like someone's thread?  You think something is spam?  Ignore it.  We're all adults here, yes?  We all have developed a sense of rational thinking, haven't we?  Don't like a thread?  Don't read it.  Don't like a poster?  Skip their posts.  Don't like it here?  Don't visit.  Work around your "issues" and you should be fine.

A true believer, eh?  I understand your position, but I think it's shallow and counterproductive.

Look, I'm not suggesting that a hammer be used when a fly swatter will do, but ignoring the problem altogether is not the answer.  There are a number of approaches that could be used.  Among other things, all of Phil's posts and those responding to them could be moved to a single thread.  That would leave the box set thread to actual discussion of the box set, and people who want to argue with Phil could do so separately.

[Gertie J.]

There's already a thread about Phil in Sandbox.

[alanjames]

Let's make a petition or something like this to request the ban of this paranoid freak 

[monicker]

So i've been thinking about the boxxx set and the career-spanning aspect of it. Inevitably, there will be a section for Smile stuff, which is really exciting and something i hadn't really considered until recently. Does anyone have any guesses what this part will entail? It's an odd situation because the Smile box just came out so recently. Will they just use stuff that's already on the Smile box, or do you think they will take this (very good) opportunity to use something from all the extra material that had to be cut because there wasn't enough room? If it's the latter, i wonder what they'd use. It would be amazing if something Smile related has recently been discovered since TSS was put out, though i really doubt it.  

I was also thinking about how the GV and PS boxes made any attempt to be as faithful to the original recordings/mixes as possible (and was explicitly stated in the liner notes) but that obviously wasn't the approach at all on TSS (with reason). So, i wonder if this new box will take the same approach as GV and PS, thus use "untampered" Smile material, or if they'd stick some revisionist piece on there. Either way, i think it's going to be interesting to see how Smile era stuff gets handled for this new box set.  

[SurfRiderHawaii]

What I'm saying is that Capitol's promise to release the box set "Later This Year"(I.E. 2012) and Mr.Doe's promise that it would be released in Nov.2012.........are apparently not to be.

I know it's hard to understand posts in the "land of delusion" but AGD never, ever PROMISED  a Nov 2012 release date.  He gets inside information and sometimes gives us a little.  As to a specific release date, no one is more aware of how in flux these things can be than AGD.

[Jim V.]

So i've been thinking about the boxxx set and the career-spanning aspect of it. Inevitably, there will be a section for Smile stuff, which is really exciting and something i hadn't really considered until recently. Does anyone have any guesses what this part will entail? It's an odd situation because the Smile box just came out so recently. Will they just use stuff that's already on the Smile box, or do you think they will take this (very good) opportunity to use something from all the extra material that had to be cut because there wasn't enough room? If it's the latter, i wonder what they'd use. It would be amazing if something Smile related has recently been discovered since TSS was put out, though i really doubt it.  

I was also thinking about how the GV and PS boxes made any attempt to be as faithful to the original recordings/mixes as possible (and was explicitly stated in the liner notes) but that obviously wasn't the approach at all on TSS (with reason). So, i wonder if this new box will take the same approach as GV and PS, thus use "untampered" Smile material, or if they'd stick some revisionist piece on there. Either way, i think it's going to be interesting to see how Smile era stuff gets handled for this new box set.  

Well my hope is that, as far as SMiLE stuff, we'd at least "Barnyard" with the backing vocals but no pasted over lead, along with that 3 minute plus version of "Child Is Father Of The Man". Beyond that, I really have no idea what they could do, as far as "unreleased" material from that era.

[Chris Brown]

So i've been thinking about the boxxx set and the career-spanning aspect of it. Inevitably, there will be a section for Smile stuff, which is really exciting and something i hadn't really considered until recently. Does anyone have any guesses what this part will entail? It's an odd situation because the Smile box just came out so recently. Will they just use stuff that's already on the Smile box, or do you think they will take this (very good) opportunity to use something from all the extra material that had to be cut because there wasn't enough room? If it's the latter, i wonder what they'd use. It would be amazing if something Smile related has recently been discovered since TSS was put out, though i really doubt it.  

I was also thinking about how the GV and PS boxes made any attempt to be as faithful to the original recordings/mixes as possible (and was explicitly stated in the liner notes) but that obviously wasn't the approach at all on TSS (with reason). So, i wonder if this new box will take the same approach as GV and PS, thus use "untampered" Smile material, or if they'd stick some revisionist piece on there. Either way, i think it's going to be interesting to see how Smile era stuff gets handled for this new box set.  

Well my hope is that, as far as SMiLE stuff, we'd at least "Barnyard" with the backing vocals but no pasted over lead, along with that 3 minute plus version of "Child Is Father Of The Man". Beyond that, I really have no idea what they could do, as far as "unreleased" material from that era.

Yeah I can't imagine them leaving off Brian's vintage "Child" mix - when it was left off the Smile box,  the only explanation I could think of was that they were saving it for this box.

[rogerlancelot]

To be honest I think that TSS has been covered enough (unless something new has been discovered) and the same goes for Pet Sound Sessions. I am way more interested in hearing material from 1970 - 1983 which either hasn't leaked out on bootleg as of yet or appears here in pristine quality. "Stevie" anybody?

[EgoHanger1966]

To be honest I think that TSS has been covered enough (unless something new has been discovered) and the same goes for Pet Sound Sessions. I am way more interested in hearing material from 1970 - 1983 which either hasn't leaked out on bootleg as of yet or appears here in pristine quality. "Stevie" anybody?

Totally. For it to be a career-spanning box, of course those two albums have to be represented - any Beach Boys box should have most of Pet Sounds - but I hope they don't get carried away with too much of the SMiLE stuff. I'd hope for a little less than what's on the GV box. And hell yes, I really hope Stevie is on there in the best quality possible!

[EgoHanger1966]

A user posted this on the Steve Hoffman forum in regards to the BB's box:

A little bird told me the box set has a lot of unreleased material nixed from the final running order per instructions from Mike Love. There was more unreleased stuff going to be released on the box but Love put the kabosh on it. I wonder why? I was told the reason Love vetoed the songs, was because the songwriting of the unreleased material was too heavily dominated by Brian Wilson. I heard this from a good source.

Take that for what you will...

[SMiLE Brian]

If this is true, Mike is still as jealous of Brian as ever. I wish Brian would stand up for his legacy more and tell Mike to shove it on matters like this.

[Justin]

Thanks for sharing.

But I don't particularly believe what that guy's source says.  Predictable stuff there with Mike being the villian.  Yawn.

[EgoHanger1966]

I'm just hoping it isn't true. There's no proof to back it up so don't wanna jump to any conclusions. But really, time is running out for this stuff. I highly doubt there will be demand for unreleased Beach Boys tracks to be released in say, 20 years time. Although many really cool and unique oddities have escaped the archives officially - I bet for every two or three unreleaed tracks that Capitol/EMI/The Beach Boys have let out, there's probably one that lays in the vaults that would be commercially viable in the context of a package and interesting to fans.

[Justin]

The "reason" for Mike axing the unreleased songs because they're mostly written by Brian is ridiculously petty.  So petty that it sounds exactly like something a fan (or Brianista) would make up just to add more gas to the flame especially at this moment when everyone has a word or two to say about Mike. 

[ontor pertawst]

Petty, but totally in character. Of course he'd want to the career-spanning box set to be favorable to him, it's not outlandish to imagine him having some qualms with "too much" unreleased stuff being a Brian and Dennis-a-thon. He'd have his reasons which would be completely understandable!

And of course, completely aggravating.

 

[Jim V.]

A user posted this on the Steve Hoffman forum in regards to the BB's box:

A little bird told me the box set has a lot of unreleased material nixed from the final running order per instructions from Mike Love. There was more unreleased stuff going to be released on the box but Love put the kabosh on it. I wonder why? I was told the reason Love vetoed the songs, was because the songwriting of the unreleased material was too heavily dominated by Brian Wilson. I heard this from a good source.

Take that for what you will...

I wouldn't think too much of this seeing as the poster on the Hoff board (a guy name fifthbeatle or something) is the guy we all remember from these parts as "vintagemusic". I don't think the guy knows his ass from a hole in the ground, and I highly doubt he has an "inside sources" with information about the box set. So I'd breathe a bit easier if I were all you guys.

[SMiLE Brian]

A user posted this on the Steve Hoffman forum in regards to the BB's box:

A little bird told me the box set has a lot of unreleased material nixed from the final running order per instructions from Mike Love. There was more unreleased stuff going to be released on the box but Love put the kabosh on it. I wonder why? I was told the reason Love vetoed the songs, was because the songwriting of the unreleased material was too heavily dominated by Brian Wilson. I heard this from a good source.

Take that for what you will...

I wouldn't think too much of this seeing as the poster on the Hoff board (a guy name fifthbeatle or something) is the guy we all remember from these parts as "vintagemusic". I don't think the guy knows his ass from a hole in the ground, and I highly doubt he has an "inside sources" with information about the box set. So I'd breathe a bit easier if I were all you guys.

That is a relief, somebody ask him about the mob.

[Jason]

This continues to be the worst thread

This continues to be one of the worst moderated sites on the web.  The attitude seems to be that there should be no moderation of these threads whatsoever - just let everyone say whatever they want, even if it derails the topic, threatens other posters, etc.  One of the mods did or does have a Noam Chomsky quote in his sig to the effect that any "censorship" is inherently evil.

It really is a shame.  All it takes is (1) a persistent troll; (2) some naive posters who don't understand the concept of "don't feed the troll"; and (3) mods who are unwilling to lift a finger to keep the discussion on track.  And voila, we have yet another thread that has virtually nothing to do with the intended subject.

For the record, I'm the one who used to have the Chomsky quote.

As far as "no moderation of these threads", we're HERE and reading them, so obviously there IS moderating going on. We just don't think every little thing that the more overly sensitive folks on here lose their sh*t over is really worth the effort. In this respect, we're actually half-decent at "not feeding the trolls". Maybe we should start banning those who DO feed the trolls. But, yeahhhhhh, that's all well and good until we start nitpicking at every little thing and then you guys will be begging for us to go away. The best response to someone like Phil is to just ignore him. Nothing he says or does is worthy of a ban, even if he speaks 99% bollocks and 1% reality. If we banned people simply because they were the odd men out in whatever topic, by the end of the day the mods will probably have banned 99% of the membership as well as ourselves because at one point or another EVERYONE on here has been that guy or girl. I'm sorry, but disagreeing with someone's viewpoint is NOT worthy of a ban.

And as far as keeping the discussions on track, how do you propose we do it? Threatening bans to those who keep derailing the thread? I mean, even that's a bit draconian. I already tried once to suggest to folks here to stop posting new threads about the same old stuff and find older threads to add it to...and, that doesn't seem to work too well, does it? Just like off of the interwebs, discussions on here will derail every so often. That's the way it works. If such diversions are troubling on here, I might suggest avoiding all conversation altogether.

Besides, for what continues to be one of the "worst moderated sites on the web"...I mean, seriously. We mods here aren't THAT unapproachable - yes, even I'm not that unapproachable. If anyone here has a problem they're more than welcome to PM any of us. I've received plenty of PMs from folks with their concerns. Contrary to popular belief we DO take the feedback from you guys seriously. Have we slipped up? Sure. We could have possibly dealt with that alleged "threatening email" thing a little better. I think inviting that one dude with all of his gore pictures back was a mistake. We could have taken care of nobody better and earlier than we did, but hey. We just can't go around banning people unless there's a legitimately GOOD reason for it.

I once suggested the idea of a banhammer challenge. For anyone who thinks such and such member has committed something worthy of a ban on the board, PM one of the mods or report the post. If the mods agree that nothing in the post is worthy of ban, the person who reported the post will be banned. Maybe then people will learn to live and let live and stop sweating the small stuff.

[The Shift]

Several months ago Id have agreed with those calling for a Phil ban but I've grown to appreciate his own brand of twaddle and the team of facts he has at his fingertips. He's hot on facts as he is on fantasy.

Mods have to tread a thin line constantly and be aware that if they ban someone there's an implication that they believe their own behaviour to be better than that of the person they've judged to be worthy of a ban. Ain't easy. On the whole they do a fine job.

Only call I'd make is for folk - mods included - to use their own names instead of monikers, then at least some might think before posting what they post. But hen I went around by the name of Wee Helper for umpteen years, so who am I…

[Alan Smith]

Several months ago Id have agreed with those calling for a Phil ban but I've grown to appreciate his own brand of twaddle and the team of facts he has at his fingertips. He's hot on facts as he is on fantasy.

Mods have to tread a thin line constantly and be aware that if they ban someone there's an implication that they believe their own behaviour to be better than that of the person they've judged to be worthy of a ban. Ain't easy. On the whole they do a fine job.

+ 1.

I think the mods here are awesome and respect that most posters here are intelligent adults, and recognise that there is a high level of self regulation in most threads - with occasional need for intervention.

Their decisions are usually proven long sighted - I would hate to see diversity of opinion and character suffer should people be banned for one-off, occasional or infrequent lapses in judgement (repeat aberrant behaviour is obviously another matter).

[The Heartical Don]

Suppose the box set has all the major hits, some attention to rarities (as in: three or four of interesting ones), and some time for the PS Sessions and TSS...

...would I chip out 100+ Euros for that? I am not a nerd enough to do that for a few samples of clearer sound quality through better mastering.

Having the 1993 box set, PS Sessions, TSS, and all the original albums (no SIP though), I'd find a little odd to do that.

And knowing that there must be really more interesting rarities would make me pretty irritated, I tells' ya.

PS: there is a very interesting section on the soul of the true collector in Simon Reynolds' Retromania (2011). A real eye opener of a book, with many ideas that elicit controversion and heated debate. Read it.

[hypehat]

A user posted this on the Steve Hoffman forum in regards to the BB's box:

A little bird told me the box set has a lot of unreleased material nixed from the final running order per instructions from Mike Love. There was more unreleased stuff going to be released on the box but Love put the kabosh on it. I wonder why? I was told the reason Love vetoed the songs, was because the songwriting of the unreleased material was too heavily dominated by Brian Wilson. I heard this from a good source.

Take that for what you will...

I wouldn't think too much of this seeing as the poster on the Hoff board (a guy name fifthbeatle or something) is the guy we all remember from these parts as "vintagemusic". I don't think the guy knows his ass from a hole in the ground, and I highly doubt he has an "inside sources" with information about the box set. So I'd breathe a bit easier if I were all you guys.

That is a relief, somebody ask him about the mob.

Yeah, thank God it's him. The voices in his head do not count as reliable sources iirc.

[Andrew G. Doe]

A user posted this on the Steve Hoffman forum in regards to the BB's box:

A little bird told me the box set has a lot of unreleased material nixed from the final running order per instructions from Mike Love. There was more unreleased stuff going to be released on the box but Love put the kabosh on it. I wonder why? I was told the reason Love vetoed the songs, was because the songwriting of the unreleased material was too heavily dominated by Brian Wilson. I heard this from a good source.

Take that for what you will...

I'd question that claim.

Take that for what you will... 

[The Heartical Don]

A user posted this on the Steve Hoffman forum in regards to the BB's box:

A little bird told me the box set has a lot of unreleased material nixed from the final running order per instructions from Mike Love. There was more unreleased stuff going to be released on the box but Love put the kabosh on it. I wonder why? I was told the reason Love vetoed the songs, was because the songwriting of the unreleased material was too heavily dominated by Brian Wilson. I heard this from a good source.

Take that for what you will...

I'd question that claim.

Take that for what you will... 

If you don't mind, I take that for what I want it to mean...